Concurrent Prophylactic Mastectomy, Immediate Reconstruction, and Salpingo-Oophorectomy in High-Risk Patients: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are limited data on coordinated breast and gynecological risk-reduction surgery for high-risk patients in Canada. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the patient demographics, surgical details, and outcomes of prophylactic mastectomy (PM) with immediate reconstruction and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in high-risk patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review at an academic center of patients who concurrently underwent PM with immediate reconstruction and laparoscopic BSO over a 7-year period (March 2010-February 2017) were identified. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients underwent PM with immediate reconstruction and concurrent BSO. The mean age at the time of surgery was 46.2 ± 6.6 years. Thirteen (81%) patients were carriers of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Two patients had prophylactic surgical therapy for BRCA1 mutation and 14 (87.5%) patients had prior oncological treatment. The most common type of procedures performed were skin-sparing, nipple-sparing mastectomy (56.2%) and reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix and implants (43.8%). All patients underwent laparoscopic BSO. The average combined case time was 282.5 ± 81.3 minutes with an average postoperative hospital stay of 1.3 ± 0.5 days. Six (37.5%) patients presented with 30-day postoperative complications, with higher rates in the alloplastic group. There were no gynecological complications. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results demonstrate that a combined multidisciplinary surgical approach did not increase length of stay or 30-day complication rates. Furthermore, concurrent risk-reducing strategies are an effective option for patients at high risk of breast or ovarian cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".